German Retailers Can Continue To Sell, Restock Galaxy Tab 10.1

Well, that’s interesting. What some already speculated has now been confirmed by Reuters: Apple’s ‘victory‘ in Germany turns out to be remarkably hollow. While Samsung Germany may no longer sell or advertise the Galaxy Tab 10.1, this ban does not cover anybody else. So, retailers will still be able to sell the device – including purchasing new stock from other Samsung branches.

Some people already speculated this was the case when the news of the injunction hit the web yesterday. We knew the injunction only covers the local German branch of Samsung, but it was unknown how this would affect inventory and selling options for retailers. As it turns out, it’s not much of a problem for retailers who want to keep selling and restocking the Galaxy Tab 10.1.

Not only are retailers allowed to sell existing stock (so, they won’t be taken off the shelves as Apple demanded in the Dutch case), they are also allowed to restock the device – as long as they don’t purchase it from Samsung’s German branch. In other words, Samsung’s Korean branch can sell the device, or they can restock from other local branches in Europe.

Media Markt, for instance, one of the largest electronics retailers which operates in both Germany and The Netherlands, could easily circumvent the ban by routing everything through The Netherlands. Media Markt told Reuters it doesn’t yet know how the ban will impact their business. Samsung itself, too, could probably make a few administrative changes to route all shipments to Germany through something other than the German branch.

So, it would seem that this victory is mostly symbolic in nature, which is good news for German consumers – their choices won’t be limited because Apple is afraid of competition.

And everytime they sue, they send a message to the market that the Galaxy tab is the main competitor to the iPad. The iPad will stand out as the product that was not good enough to make it on its own merits without legal help. How smart is that.

And everytime they sue, they send a message to the market that the Galaxy tab is the main competitor to the iPad. The iPad will stand out as the product that was not good enough to make it on its own merits without legal help. How smart is that.

I think you’re under the mistaken impression that the majority of people will actually think about such things. In reality, they won’t care. iPad shiny, iPad good. Samsung getting sued, Samsung bad. That’s the extent of most average consumers’ intelligence these days, at least here in the states.

That’s the extent of most average consumers’ intelligence these days, at least here in the states.

Yeah, maybe before the internet existed…

I was just at a pool party with some people from my daughter’s school, and I asked someone there (who had an iPad with him): did you hear about the German lawsuit against Samsung? And he launched into a discussion with me about how pitiful that behavior is on Apple’s part. I smile thinking about it

What would Apple’s reaction have been if these two tabs were actually running Windows 8. So the whole design would be identical, everything would be the same except for the OS, Windows 8. I have a feeling the outcome would have been a lot different.

Looks like things may not be as straightforward as this report makes out.

I know FOSS Patents is not Thom’s favourite source but Florian Mueller does seem to have some knowledge in this area and his reports always contain more facts and more reasoning than seem to be the case in a lot of reporting – so here is the link. Make your own mind up.

It sounds very factually and such – until you look closer. His argument basically comes to two things: one, even if Samsung Germany is not involved, Samsung might still be in trouble. Second, it would be insanely easy for Apple to extend the injunction to retailers. Let’s look at these, shall we?

So what if MediaMarkt ordered 10,000 Galaxy Tabs 10.1 from Samsung Korea for shipment to, say, the Netherlands? Then Samsung would be treading a dangerous path because subject to the specifics of the deal and the knowledge Samsung has of what MediaMarkt plans to do with those products, Samsung might be found to act in contempt of the injunction. Since MediaMarkt operates stores in a large number of countries, Samsung could always try to defend itself that it assumed the products were going to be sold in other markets than Germany — but not if Apple can prove that Samsung clearly knew it.

Emphasis added. Read the article carefully, and you’ll see not a single quoted law, not a single certainty, all vague ifs and buts and coulds and mights. It’s incredibly flimsy.

How on earth can Samsung be privy to the internal distribution structures of MediaMarkt and the dozens of other retailers? That’s nonsensical. It would be nigh-impossible for Apple to prove ANYthing in this regard. If retailers order Galaxy Tabs from wherever – either through other retailers in Europe, or other Samsung branches, or wholesalers – then Samsung has ZERO control over where those Tabs end up. That is up to the retailers. Samsung is NOT responsible for what retailers do with products they bought.

Moving on to the second argument, and it gets even sillier.

Apple could easily extend the injunction to retailers or, more likely, use soft pressure to dissuade them from selling the Galaxy Tab 10.1 (and 7.7) in Germany

So, Apple is going to pressure all the dozens of retailers into not selling the Tab? It’s going to ask for injunctions against all the important retailers? That’s silly, because the relationship between retailers and Apple is not balanced, no matter how much Mueller wants it to be.

In Europe, Apple relies almost exclusively on retailers. There are barely any Apple stores, and those few that exist, are only in the large cities. Apple NEEDS retailers, but retailers don’t really need Apple – Apple is only a minutely small part of their sales. They could stop selling Apple stuff today and barely feel a thing.

This is Mueller grasping at straws to do damage control – i.e., to make the ruling seem more significant than it really is. He also completely ignores the Dutch ruling when extolling the importance of the German ruling for the case in the US – even though the Dutch case was FAR more comprehensive, since it included lots of software patents as well. The Dutch ruling will be of far more use to Samsung than the German ruling will be for Apple.

The reason he ignores this is clear: it’s his job to make Apple appear as strong as possible, and anything related to Google as weak as possible.

Concerning the point further above about advertising, it’s true that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 (and 7.7) can’t be advertised by Samsung in Germany as a result of the injunction, and that in and of itself is beneficial to Apple. In fact, Samsung’s German press spokeswoman even navigated around any use of the product name in an AndroidPit interview.

The reason I didn’t make the advertising point in my post is because retailers like MediaMarkt can still promote until they agree, or are required, to comply, too.

Emphasis added. Read the article carefully, and you’ll see not a single quoted law, not a single certainty, all vague ifs and buts and coulds and mights. It’s incredibly flimsy.

The ifs/buts/coulds/mights are needed because we’re talking about scenarios involving the purely hypothetical behavior of Apple, Samsung, and other parties. I obviously can’t say that Samsung did or does sell to MediaMarkt via the Netherlands until it actually happens.

In terms of not quoting the law, I’m not sure OSNews has ever quoted the law other than quoting third parties who did so…

I can speak from actual experience in dealing with this. Don’t know what Thom’s background is, but I have a real industry background. Apart from that, I have just this year already advised 12 (later today, 13) different clients, including some of the world’s leading investment banks, on intellectual property issues and their economic and technical implications. Law.com, the leading U.S. legal website (affiliated with the leading print publication for U.S. lawyers), refers to me as “our go-to smartphone wars commentator”. If I know something is the case, I don’t have to spend time digging up German case law (which most of my readers couldn’t understand anyway) to support my argument.

How on earth can Samsung be privy to the internal distribution structures of MediaMarkt and the dozens of other retailers? That’s nonsensical. It would be nigh-impossible for Apple to prove ANYthing in this regard.

Interestingly, the same person who said that I have too many ifs/buts/mights/coulds in my post now restricts the statement with “nigh” before “impossible”. So Thom can’t commit that it’s 100% impossible. He uses a weasel word just so he doesn’t have to admit that what I said is true. Since Thom can’t commit to “impossible” but says “nigh-impossible”, it apparently IS possible, and then I had a point and was right.

If retailers order Galaxy Tabs from wherever – either through other retailers in Europe, or other Samsung branches, or wholesalers – then Samsung has ZERO control over where those Tabs end up. That is up to the retailers. Samsung is NOT responsible for what retailers do with products they bought.

I never said anything to the contrary. However, while I don’t know how much Thom knows about the world of business, I have done a fair amount of business with companies like MediaMarkt in connection with a variety of consumer software products. I visited their HQ to talk business, I met their purchasing managers at CeBIT and other tradeshows. I know how that sales process works. The practical reality is that most of the time they will ask you for a so-called cooperative advertising allowance as an additional discount they use for their extensive promotions. And one you talk about cooperative advertising and effectively subsidizing it through a discount, you do talk about where the product gets promoted and sold.

Moving on to the second argument, and it gets even sillier.

Yes, something does get silliers — not my blog post, but Thom’s attempts to counter it.

So, Apple is going to pressure all the dozens of retailers into not selling the Tab? It’s going to ask for injunctions against all the important retailers? That’s silly,

What’s utterly and pathetically silly is Thom’s failure to understand that any overlap between legal and business considerations needs a look at both sides, and I started with what Apple’s legal options would be. My own blog post — which everyone but “silly” people could see — makes it clear that and why it’s undesirable for Apple to do this. But as far as the law is concerned, it’s easy as 1-2-3. They wouldn’t need senior law firm partners to do this. This would be almost at the level of what a good secretary can do all by herself.

because the relationship between retailers and Apple is not balanced, no matter how much Mueller wants it to be.

In Europe, Apple relies almost exclusively on retailers. There are barely any Apple stores, and those few that exist, are only in the large cities. Apple NEEDS retailers, but retailers don’t really need Apple – Apple is only a minutely small part of their sales. They could stop selling Apple stuff today and barely feel a thing.

Again, it becomes pretty clear that Thom doesn’t understand the world of business. It’s a different world than the world of blogs. I know both worlds — Thom appears to know only one of them, which is why I guess professionals wouldn’t turn to him for serious advice.

I made it perfectly clear on my blog that what would happen is that Apple approaches retailers about the fact that the product and its promotion are unlawful in Germany, and that retailers would want to stay on good terms with Apple as well. They wouldn’t look at this in terms of whether they can survive without Apple. Sure, if a very small vendor came to them, they would just throw out that vendor. But the amount of money they make with Apple products is large enough that they’ll be interested in a constructive solution.

If a product is considered unlawful by a court (no matter how I personally, as quoted on Forbes.com, criticize that particular court), a retailer who tells a vendor that he wants to ignore the legal situation does damage to his reputation. At the end of the day those retailers — unlike Thom — know very well that one can ignore the law only to a certain point. There are many more situations than just Apple v. Samsung. Only for one Galaxy Tab product, no retailer will throw out all of Apple’s stuff, since Apple’s customers would easily find plenty of companies willing to sell the product to them in Germany. Those products are legal, so the market (supply and demand) will take care of this. With unlawful products, that’s different.

This is Mueller grasping at straws to do damage control – i.e., to make the ruling seem more significant than it really is.

I don’t do “damage control”. I explain the economic and legal ramifications correctly.

He also completely ignores the Dutch ruling when extolling the importance of the German ruling for the case in the US – even though the Dutch case was FAR more comprehensive, since it included lots of software patents as well. The Dutch ruling will be of far more use to Samsung than the German ruling will be for Apple.

The software patents included in the Dutch case aren’t at issue in the U.S. process concerning a preliminary injunction. However, Samsung was found to infringe one of them, and no matter how easily the problem can be fixed, that’s how the Dutch case helps Apple. It’s a you-win-some-you-lose-some business: it doesn’t matter that the Dutch judge threw out 2 patent infringement claims because that happens in pretty much every multi-patent case.

On the design-related right, the Dutch judge disagrees with the German judge. While I think the Dutch judge took a desirable decision, from the perspective of a judge in California, a German court simply has far more relevance than a Dutch court due to the size of the markets. Germany has 82 million inhabitants, the Netherlands 17 million: that’s a factor of 4.8.

The reason he ignores this is clear: it’s his job to make Apple appear as strong as possible, and anything related to Google as weak as possible.

No. I’m in the business of being right as a consultant and analyst. In that business, Thom would certainly struggle to survive.

Again, it becomes pretty clear that Thom doesn’t understand the world of business. It’s a different world than the world of blogs. I know both worlds — Thom appears to know only one of them, which is why I guess professionals wouldn’t turn to him for serious advice.

Since you know the world of business:

Apple’s revenue: 65 billions $

Samsung Electronics: 135 billions $ (and note, Samsung Electronics, so the division that build and sales to consumers, and which is the competitor of Apple)

And now, tell us, which of those two big companies the distributors sell the most products ? And from which of them do they sell most products ? And then which of those two companies they are the most likely to want to piss off.

In all likelihood, neither of them. But then, neither Apple nor Samsung are willing to piss them off, so in the end, it will be a stalemate on the front of distributors.

Again, it becomes pretty clear that Thom doesn’t understand the world of business. It’s a different world than the world of blogs. I know both worlds — Thom appears to know only one of them, which is why I guess professionals wouldn’t turn to him for serious advice.

Since you know the world of business:

Apple’s revenue: 65 billions $

Samsung Electronics: 135 billions $ (and note, Samsung Electronics, so the division that build and sales to consumers, and which is the competitor of Apple)

I am afraid your figures are little out of date and fail to take into consideration Apple’s massive recent growth.

Based on the last quarter (which was not a holiday buying season) Apple’s annualised revenue is around $114 billion. Apple has grown every quarter for sometime now and the expected launch of the iPhone 5, iCloud, Apple’s new carrier deals in China and the looming holiday buying season will almost certainly push that figure up significantly in the coming year.

It is almost certain that Apple will surpass Samsung revenues in the next year. Apple is of course much more profitable than Samsung.

It is almost certain that Apple will surpass Samsung revenues in the next year. Apple is of course much more profitable than Samsung.

Apple has a long way to go before it surpasses Samsung in revenue. Samsung Electronics is only one part of the Samsung Group. The Samsung Group – the equivalent of Apple, Inc. – has a revenue of $172.5 billion (2009).

Apple has grown every quarter for sometime now and the expected launch of the iPhone 5, iCloud, Apple’s new carrier deals in China and the looming holiday buying season will almost certainly push that figure up significantly in the coming year.

And this does not Apply to Samsung?

To make it even better: As Apple sells more iPhones, Samsung’s revenues go up .

Well, I just registered to say something here. I was a regular reader of fosspatents blog. I thought it was an interesting read. He definitely is one of the guys who takes pride in his trade and does provide descriptive analysis. I am in no way connected with patents or legal matters, but just found the subject interesting. But then it started getting boring with his subtle remarks towards anything against Apple. He claims he is an authority in terms of IP-related law suits. I am sure he is, as I see his articles being tagged across other multiple websites. But he seems to enjoy deriding other fellow writers/bloggers. I am sure most people here are intelligent and have expertise in some field. But that does not mean we have to be rude or condescending. Few days back, I was reading an article, and I was seriously agitated when I read this line – “Lucy Koh, the judge presiding over the lawsuit in California, is the first-ever Korean-American U.S. federal judge. There’s no reason whatsoever to doubt her fairness.”

Now, tell me this isn’t racist. This is like saying…forget that. I never heard anything similar about an “pure-American” judge working on any other case. What is that supposed to say about the nature of person? He maybe be very good at his skills, but maybe, just maybe, he needs to develop better personal skills.

Few days back, I was reading an article, and I was seriously agitated when I read this line – “Lucy Koh, the judge presiding over the lawsuit in California, is the first-ever Korean-American U.S. federal judge. There’s no reason whatsoever to doubt her fairness.”

Now, tell me this isn’t racist. This is like saying…forget that. I never heard anything similar about an “pure-American” judge working on any other case. What is that supposed to say about the nature of person?

You may be hypersensitive in this regard, but you can be sure that it’s not a coincidence at all that the court appointed the first-ever Korean-American judge to this high-profile case involving a major American and a major Korean company.

It has nothing to do with racism, but you can find judges around the world — of all races — that tend to be biased toward domestic companies, just like you can find judges of all races who are unbiased.

Well, I just registered to say something here. I was a regular reader of fosspatents blog. I thought it was an interesting read. He definitely is one of the guys who takes pride in his trade and does provide descriptive analysis. I am in no way connected with patents or legal matters, but just found the subject interesting. But then it started getting boring with his subtle remarks towards anything against Apple. He claims he is an authority in terms of IP-related law suits. I am sure he is, as I see his articles being tagged across other multiple websites. But he seems to enjoy deriding other fellow writers/bloggers. I am sure most people here are intelligent and have expertise in some field. But that does not mean we have to be rude or condescending. Few days back, I was reading an article, and I was seriously agitated when I read this line – “Lucy Koh, the judge presiding over the lawsuit in California, is the first-ever Korean-American U.S. federal judge. There’s no reason whatsoever to doubt her fairness.”

Now, tell me this isn’t racist. This is like saying…forget that. I never heard anything similar about an “pure-American” judge working on any other case. What is that supposed to say about the nature of person? He maybe be very good at his skills, but maybe, just maybe, he needs to develop better personal skills.

I am not defending Florian Mueller, he can do that himself, and I don’t defend his remarks about the ethnicity of the judge but Thom who runs this blog regularly calls the guy a shill and in fact frequently dismisses people he disagrees with as being a trolls and shills. I don’t think doing that is very helpful and nor does it foster rational discourse amongst those with disagreeing views.

I am not defending Florian Mueller, he can do that himself, and I don’t defend his remarks about the ethnicity of the judge but Thom who runs this blog regularly calls the guy a shill and in fact frequently dismisses people he disagrees with as being a trolls and shills. I don’t think doing that is very helpful and nor does it foster rational discourse amongst those with disagreeing views.

Exactly. And that’s why you NEVER do the same*cough*.

I rarely call someone a troll. I usually use the terms zealot and fanatic. That’s something else entirely.

Fanatic or zealot is not namecallng. If I see someone ONLY posting about Apple, and then ONLY defending EACH AND EVERY action of Apple, while at the same time continuously questioning my intelligence, and while creating multiple accounts…

Then what other label than fanatic or zealot am I supposed to use to describe said person?

Someone defending Apple or anything else could be right. If you disagree you can do so and explain why.

But often you start in the article, calling companies trolls. Even if they are it doesn’t add anything. People you don’t agree with are put away as Apple puppets or on the Microsoft payroll. It takes away the focus on the message.

Because we live in the real world? I never heard you complaining about Apple fanatics on OSNews calling me an anti-Apple troll. Curious.

Someone defending Apple or anything else could be right. If you disagree you can do so and explain why.

That is irrelevant to the case whether someone’s a fanatic or zealot. You can be 100% right all the time and still be a fanatic.

But often you start in the article, calling companies trolls. Even if they are it doesn’t add anything.

Apple and Microsoft fit the definition of a patent troll – we went over that already – so why not call them out on it? You may disagree with that assessment – and that’s why we have a comment section to voice your disagreement. In fact, you could even write an article about it, and we’d post it, as we do often (we did so recently).

The reason I can get agitated about all this is that unlike other sites, we are very open about everything we do, the things we believe in, and the things we stand for. We have an open-door policy, and if you want to argue your case, you can post comments AND submit articles – even if they disagree with what I think. So, Apple fanatics call OSNews anti-Apple and pro-Google (which is idiotic to begin with, as anyone with two brain cells to rub together can conclude from perusing the posting history), but when I offer to publish their thoughts, they suddenly snap shut – because posting their article would obviously undermine the world view they created for themselves to explain away any negativity towards Apple (“pff, the site/author is just anti-Apple and out to destroy Apple!!1!”).

People you don’t agree with are put away as Apple puppets or on the Microsoft payroll.

Have I ever done that? Again – a fanatic or a zealot is not a troll or an astroturfer. I think you may not be reading right.

Because we live in the real world? I never heard you complaining about Apple fanatics on OSNews calling me an anti-Apple troll. Curious.

In the real world people tend to be more polite and reserved in their judgement. As an IT guy I have to deal with users who one can describe as stupid, but I don’t. Well, not when they can hear me obviously.

If someone disagrees with me and starts insulting me I know there is nothing I can say to change his mind, discussion over.

Next time someone calls you a name I’ll jump in to defend you.

Someone defending Apple or anything else could be right. If you disagree you can do so and explain why.

That is irrelevant to the case whether someone’s a fanatic or zealot. You can be 100% right all the time and still be a fanatic.

That’s right, but why says someone is this or that? Even if it’s true. If you write a letter to Gadaffi and start with “Dear mr. Dictator” you might be right, but I don’t think he’ll be pleased.

But often you start in the article, calling companies trolls. Even if they are it doesn’t add anything.

Apple and Microsoft fit the definition of a patent troll – we went over that already – so why not call them out on it? You may disagree with that assessment – and that’s why we have a comment section to voice your disagreement. In fact, you could even write an article about it, and we’d post it, as we do often (we did so recently).

They fit your definition of patent troll, not mine, but when you post an article about patent stuff, which isn’t my favorite topic, I’d rather have discussion about the patent stuff, not the definition of patent troll.

The reason I can get agitated about all this is that unlike other sites, we are very open about everything we do, the things we believe in, and the things we stand for. We have an open-door policy, and if you want to argue your case, you can post comments AND submit articles – even if they disagree with what I think. So, Apple fanatics call OSNews anti-Apple and pro-Google (which is idiotic to begin with, as anyone with two brain cells to rub together can conclude from perusing the posting history), but when I offer to publish their thoughts, they suddenly snap shut – because posting their article would obviously undermine the world view they created for themselves to explain away any negativity towards Apple (“pff, the site/author is just anti-Apple and out to destroy Apple!!1!”).

You certainly do give off the impression of being anti-Apple.

If I were to write something it wouldn’t be about Apple, because there already is too much written about them, even for a fanboy like me.

The reason I don’t write anything is because I don’t think it will get published.

People you don’t agree with are put away as Apple puppets or on the Microsoft payroll.

Have I ever done that? Again – a fanatic or a zealot is not a troll or an astroturfer. I think you may not be reading right.

Perhaps not, but you do give me that impression, something other people don’t.

But lets end on a happy note, I’ll be your bodyguard when people insult you (if I notice, don’t read every comment) and I’ll try to read better.

“The reason I can get agitated about all this is that unlike other sites, we are very open about everything we do, the things we believe in, and the things we stand for. We have an open-door policy, and if you want to argue your case, you can post comments AND submit articles – even if they disagree with what I think.”

So I really appreciate this kind of openness on osnews.

I’ve left other boards over censorship, just recently there was a spat over censorship at the discussion boards over at dice.com, which hosts a message board about US politics and jobs in IT. Certain critical threads are silently deleted, which is troubling given how often Dice opinions are cited in the media.

Is Thom impartial? Not really IMHO, but so what? We’ve got the comments to debate it. I feel on here Thom is more like one of us than an admin masquerading as an authority.

“The reason I can get agitated about all this is that unlike other sites, we are very open about everything we do, the things we believe in, and the things we stand for. We have an open-door policy, and if you want to argue your case, you can post comments AND submit articles – even if they disagree with what I think.”

So I really appreciate this kind of openness on osnews.

I’ve left other boards over censorship, just recently there was a spat over censorship at the discussion boards over at dice.com, which hosts a message board about US politics and jobs in IT. Certain critical threads are silently deleted, which is troubling given how often Dice opinions are cited in the media.

Is Thom impartial? Not really IMHO, but so what? We’ve got the comments to debate it. I feel on here Thom is more like one of us than an admin masquerading as an authority.

Don’t overdo it. We have 35000 registered users, and like two or three got banned over the past few years. Two or three. That’s it. They got banned because of repeated attacks against my character – which went on for MONTHS on end because we’re relaxed like that – and because I started getting emails from readers who were sick of these people’s continuous attacks.

You’re being overly dramatic over nothing. The fact that people like you can freely post here, and question my every goddamn move without any of your comments even so much as disappearing PROVES how lenient and relaxed we are. It makes me slightly angry that you are accusing us of that kind of behaviour. You’re like the starving beggar complaining he’s not getting a six course after his free five course meal.

I suggest you stop spreading nonsense like this, because if there is one SURE way to become number four, it’s this. I can take abusive comments, but something I have very little tolerance for is continuous incessant “help-help-I’m-being-repressed!”-whining, even though OSNews is probably one of the most relaxed, open, and tolerant sites on the web.

And last, but not least: remember that I don’t owe you anything. The fact that you’re even getting an explanation and response like this to this “issue” says more than enough.

You’re forgetting the fact these were multiple accounts from the same people. One person, for instance, made 2 accounts, and is now back with yet another (I won’t reveal which one). I’m giving that person a third chance. A third chance. A third fcuking chance in only a few months. And you’re trying to argue we are repressive? Lolwut?!

Okay, I’ll make you happy. Make me number 6.

*shakes head*

I’m closing this thread. Chalk that up to us being overly repressive and anti-free speech.

I am not defending Florian Mueller, he can do that himself, and I don’t defend his remarks about the ethnicity of the judge but Thom who runs this blog regularly calls the guy a shill and in fact frequently dismisses people he disagrees with as being a trolls and shills. I don’t think doing that is very helpful and nor does it foster rational discourse amongst those with disagreeing views.

Exactly. And that’s why you NEVER do the same*cough*.

I rarely call someone a troll. I usually use the terms zealot and fanatic. That’s something else entirely.

Why bother? Why insult anybody? Why call any names? Why not try to foster an emotionally cooler tone of discourse, one that favours the rational over the emotional. We all, perhaps oddly, have emotional responses to technologies which may explains why we tend to attack or defend certain things. That’s just being human. But surely it is better to have a debate that in content is as rational and reasoned as possible. I don’t think anybody should use the word troll or shill. It seems pointless, unproductive and unhelpful.

Thom why not start a new campaign, through personal example, to make the discussion on OS news the most rational and productive it can be. What’s to lose?

While I’m glad for (German) consumers that in practice they won’t have problems to buy their Samsungs, I’m still afraid that the Apple PR machine would claim it a victory and make the best use of it to feed their R.D.S. and broadcast the messages “you see? It’s demonstrated even in the European courts: *we* are the innovators…”